*1 In no I wish to be of sufficient notice sense do understood a lack eras there was that purpose ap- anyone reading the as the beneficial to legislature, objecting to the Act, quarrel my the the title, parently itself contained intended Act that the legal designed purports merely basis and authority being which it on a sweeping only my personal type of alarm but grant. this is the to voice exactly believe I legisla- of prohibited perhaps the members the intended to be alert statute which was government I IV, of our state of our Constitution. tive branch art. § in of quite regular dangers in our biennial involved the enactment understand as this. legislature, which a statute such sessions of the one of time, present is al- in session at the it go- My majоrity, with the disagreement impossible most for the members of very ing as foundation of it does to body to themselves honored familiarize Act, constitutionality makes of contents all bills come unnecessary any discussion of the remain- hard before I find it believe that them. opinion, points ing in but should set out legislature members expression ap- not be considered approve the in- who voted to Act here disposition made proval as to volved, far-reaching realized could have other I dissent. issues. consequences possible by passage made certainly legislation, un- most less studied Act each individual
full, he had no notice of the enormous
powers granted to Park P.2d 1009 Authority
Recreation Commission —certainly it could not have been deter- ex rel. STATE of New Mexico STATE HIGH Mexico, WAY of New COMMISSION reаding mined from a mere of the title. Petitioner-Appellant, deficiency (and
One further the title say may I do not mean to there MAUNEY, Mauney, Vance Helen S. Willis A. Smith, Jr., Ralph Jane B. Smith complete any be no- others) is the lack Wolf, Defendants-Appellees. P. tice the provisions of the content of No. 7639. relating inapplicability 11-10-26 § all laws inconsistent with Bond Act. Supreme Court New Mexico. provision, Certainly, broad such a March implied repealer apparently is not an but is else, something have noted should been
the title. *2 compen- and that no power
lice the state taking sable 'of defendants’ The actions. Road 422 resulted from those the de- judgment for trial court rendered petitioner appeals. fendants and petitioner-appellant will be referred “Cоmmission,” the defend- as ants-appellees to as will be referred defendant-lessee, whose “landowners.” The dependent rights on those in this case are lessors-owners, is included latter term. owners, possessed,
The landowners separated two of land Road tracts highway, road was a four-lane running generally north and There south. *3 two were southbound two northbound lanes, depressed with medial divider and a a fence down the center of median in the vicinity property. of The landowners’ larger tract was located on of Atty. Gen., Hartley, Hadley . Earl E. Kel- always has east side of Worden, sey, .Joseph Droege, L. C. John been, today, unimproved. and is This tract Whitley, Stillinger, Sp. T. Neil C. Richard tract, smaller referred to as tract 2. The Fe, Asst..Attys. Gеn., appellant. for Santa raised, 1, part, referred to as tract was ' Botts, Cole, Mauney, R. Botts & Gerald grade Road coincide of State Vaught, Jr., Albuquerque, ap- for S. Jethro 422, after a the landowners had obtained pellees. driveway permit 422. State Road enter permit This has Land- never been revoked. CHAVEZ, Justice. right-of- owners then filled in the state’s way declarаtory highway. judg- between tract 1 and the action .-This ment, Upon, completion station, .Highway of a service filed the State Commis- Mexico, operated alleged owners then said station sion New . February 1, 1961. until March concerning their actions defendants’ po- landowners indicate proper were a exercise of These facts -QQ ~ access to the sоuthbound lanes The projects,' bad direct construction the' directly particularly' not reach more hut could State Road the construction of the to the fence barrier the northbound lanes due fence between the frontage road lanes, and the the median. southbound has caused a de- ’ preciation of the market value of both project started The Commission tracts and 2. The trial court concluded February 025^4(23)238 I The that the landowners had compen- suffered project involved the construction two damage by sable deprivation reason of roads, frontage of State one on either side tract compensable but no dam- original right-of-way. Road within the age as to tract 2. It is from finding frontage These roads extend north from compensable damage to tract interchange 422 and 44 of State Roads appeals. Commission (Placitas Interchange), abut landowners’ interchange, tracts 1760 feet from the This resulting the first north continue dead-end 7500 feet from the creation of high limited access interchange. north of the ways, to come before this par сourt. The presented ties have excellent briefs which frontage tracts, Where roads abut the call variety attention to the conflicting grade original on the are same as the solutions and decisions made the courts Road 422. Commission used the country. of this However, general placed fill which landowners had principles closely outlined in related Nеw right-of-way driveway for their when it applied Mexico appli cases must be when constructed the road in front of cable. tract 1. parties agree Both it is clear placed
Guard fences
were
between
duty
that the state does
owe
original
Road
roads
past
prop
landowner to send traffic
his
prevent
422 to
traffic from
between
moving
erty.
businеss,
damage
them,
defendant’s
except
Interchange.
at the Placitas
when
straightened, diverting
a road is
traf
Therefore,
landowners must utilize the
part
road,
fic over a new
is not
frontage roads to reach their tracts.
In
*4
compensable damage.
County
of
Board
order move
through
a vehicle from the
County
of
Slaughter,
Com’rs
Santa Fe
tracts,
lanes
of
Road 422 to the
one
49 N.M.
P.2d state, in its that the exercise of applicable are which principles nounced power, recognized police the interest of there case. We to the instant safety public, traveling in- has development of the altered highway right to or to cer- A new limit control access gress egress of a landowner. and * * * highways. opposite tain highway on ” was constructed the land- highway the old which side of that the This court also considered fact a became highway abutted. The old owner the landowners were road which about frontage road had a dead-end and to use was a dead-end similar forced property. The north of the 800 feet case. In we the one the instant Silva required to about travel owners were v. Board of Com’rs cited Mandell portion a a feet the south to utilize County, Bernalillo leaving or enter- interchange when traffic 108,and said: recognized ing рroperty. This court their “ ** jf. js * wen established landown- which that access jurisdiction mere inconven- which right ers a abut is closing ience a resulting from the just compensa- deprived be without cannot give legal right street does not rise to II, New provided tion Art. § inconvenienced, in one so when another However, in State Constitution. Mexico reasonable, though equally рerhaps not Sil- Highway Commission v. ex rel. State accessible, means to the main of access va, said: we ” * * * system street remains. growing “The use of automotive And in : conclusion stated many transportation naturally led rule, “We think the better problems connected with health decisions, weight more of the recent safety traveling pub- general upon a that one whose abuts necessity restrictions lic and to the for part highway, road concerning, regulations the use vacated, special dam- closed or has no public highways. the construc- With upon age if lands do not abut his modern, high-speed, tion of thereof, re- portion if there closed necessity highways interstate came to the main mains reasonable access access to from such controlled ”* * * system. safety highways in the interest of acknowledged in the case Silva public generally. It is It well completely highway was the limited access regulation settled limitation or on the new, were left the landowners police highway traffic comes under *5 AT pavement same they ing as were before the would, traffic except for traffic re- construction. This difference will strictions, be treat- have direct easy and ingress ed opinion. later in the egress and highway from the to property, abutter’s may, the state nev-
This court considered another case in- ertheless, restrict the entrance and volving the creation of a limited access exit of traveling public if such re- highway in ex High 1963. Stаte rel. State appears striction reasonable ex- as an way ek, Commission v. Lavas 73 N.M. police ercise power its regulate to in which the old road was ** traffic, *; state, completely removed. The state condemned power ’exercise its to construct property additional and built a four-lane highways traffic, and control through highway. It also constructed a abutting liable for loss trade to frontage road which abutted the land owners a result of the exercise property point. owners’ at front one ”* * * police power. its age required road the landowners travel about join 700 feet west iton the west In Highway ex rel. State through They bound lanes. had to travel Danfelser, Commission 384 interchange abоut feet through P.2d 241, this court considered a much case join eastbound traffic on the present like the one. In old that construction, they lanes. Before had di highway was left intact as State Road rect access to both directions of travel. was left in this case. The con state then This held that the landowners could structed a road land between the comрensation change receive for the property through portion owners’ their access and stated: only highway. of the old difference highway “If the had been built between that construction the project regard new location without to its dis- present in the case is con state highway tance from the old on which agreed pay demned and for some оf located, the abutter’s on which built landowners’ only would have amounted to diversion road. The court defined of traffic and have non- would been right access, jurisdiction, in this as: compensable though it even resulted * * complete right ingress loss of the business to and * * formerly oyed. enj egress abutting
the abutter had land on an street highway If a sys- new controlled-access thеrefrom right-of-way public roads, subject located on of the old tem of to reason- regulations able conventional where the mov- traffic and not affect- '"42 Landowners also refer to earlier New or reasonable traffic diversion
(cid:127)ed support Mexico decisions in of their con- circuity of travel.” brought tention. Those same cases were' un- no there was found that The court this court’s attention in the Danfelser case. ac- appellee’s interference reasonable At the court indicated time, *6 the own- compensation to cess and denied change grade ' to situation referred ers. County County of Lincoln Board Com’rs Harris, 710, case at instant 69 N.M. 366 P.2d was in the Landowners case; point thе from not in it is not in case and distinguish this' tempt to calling point only change atten in this case the where cases Silva and Lavasek cases, the in grade once vehicle reaches the that, those occurs a to fact tion the high interchange. the old frontage was made road frontage road way, this case the while in Hendricks, New Mexican Co. v. Railroad They the attack entirely also new. was Bennett v. P. and Na- frontage road case, the where Danfelser tions, 49 N.M. were also indicating that several road, by a new was considered in the Danfelser and new opinion involved cited in cases appeared to in- that these cases stated frontage roads. roadways through and old deprivation of access without volve total any reasonable access indication of why per- understand a cannot This court system. is not the situation That dif- compensation should rights toas son’s here. old to use the decide if the state should fer it for the frontage or use road
road for re- of access noted above The definition highway. a limited access through lanes circuity quires of travel us to consider the juris- access in definition of Under the required landowners determine no make diction, difference should such a not, reasonable, if land- if it is it compensation for right change in deprived of access. owners have been deprivation of access. a defi- appears seek The Commission circuity be measured сan rule which can- nite point that the state out
Landowners is not secondary in each case. This and considered use a require owner to unnecessary to do impossible, road, only it is nor but angle right at to the main road The at- deciding before us. so in the case road. The can it force use a second torneys parties have illustrated for both required case. are in this owners not so of solutions range their that a wide briefs They even are still Road on State rea- been held problem have type of required to this though circuity travel is some on the depending unreasonable, sonable or through reach road. lanes of particular particular juris- ed, facts appear it but does not that the new route’ diction any involved. more difficult the old than route. traffic, southbound which direct had circuity up travel set when access construction, before the must now constructed, by limited tract's, travel past one-third of a mile very highways, may nature of such re- turn interchange, onto an then follow quire through traffic be routed around frontage right- back roads 'down through interchangеs lanes and of-way. We do not feel that this involves designed roads for local traffic. circuity Therefore, unreasonable of travel. The reverse will be true when local deprived landowners ac- have not been traffic on the is directed to roads cess. lanes. Landowners feel that issuance,of present case, In the landowners seem to' driveway permit, which has been, never re- object transiting grades of the inter- voked, upon improved tract change. recognizes While this court 1, enhances position. their grades some precipitous can be so as tó be unreasonable, we do feel that the ordi- We have held that the landowners stili nary underpass overpass un- involves have *7 State Road 422. The drive- grades reasonable the modern motor way permit is still being honored in that vehicle. the permitted landowners are to cross the state’s right-of-way property from their parties in this case num- stress the
Both pavement of the Legal- road. ber of extra feet vehicle must travel to ly, they driveway still have a on State solely reach the involved. It is not Róad: 422. the number feet which must be consider- ed, curves, type because the number and Even if we were to assume that well speed, as the all attainable have a permit .revoked, was part,1 revoked in bearing on Here the state reasonableness. the law affords no relief in favor the' required through traffic, has desiring landowners. It permit is clear that a is a"
to rеach property, landowners’ exit on license, and the words are often used interchange one-third of a mile the. synonymously. People, Parsons v. 32 Colo. tracts and follow a road for that 666; 221, Arlington 76 P. Cemetery Corpo . distance. ration v. Bindig, 698, 212 Ga. 95 S.E.2d
The facts are not clear as to method may 378. Such license be revoked in the which northbound traffic used to reaсh police exercise power state, of the Fochi project tracts Splain, Sup., before the was v. construct- 774; 36 N.Y.S.2d Latreille
M judgment heretofore entered be vacated and Chiropractic Michigan Board State v. 611, 440, judgment be entered -in favor Exam., Mich. 98 N.W.2d 357 is Commission. power of revocation or not the whether Corporation v. reserved, Petroleum Vincent It ordered. is so Cal.App.2d City, 43 Culver 433; Virginia Morris v. West State ex rel. COMPTON, J., concurs. S.E. Racing 133 W.Va. 55 Commission, though the has licensee 2d even MOISE, concurring in (specially Justice permit. on expended in reliance money result) : ex v. Louisiana State State rel. Orleans my dis- expressed I times have three Commission, La. 112 So. Boxing 163 follow- agreement the rule here of law 31; 192 Bregman, Bland 123 Conn. v. Highway Com- ed. ex rel. State See State 703; Water, Light Hathaway Yakima A. v. 350, 356, P.2d 71 N.M. 378 Silva, mission v. Co., and Power 14 Wash. 44 P. 595; Commis- Highway ex rel. State 361, 369, Danfelser, sion 72 N.M. call landowners attention 241; Highway P.2d ex rel. State fact rise values often 33, 39, Lavasek, Commission v. given tract. when a road is built The other P.2d 361. members This in is used to off-set increase value what, I said remain unconvinced pay amount state must my rulе appears It that the dissents. thus por proceedings eminent to take a domain being law in cases, announced in these road. tion of a for a Landowners tract state, purpose this no useful would be argue mitigates state so dam that when the expressions disagree- served further destroys in land ages, and the increase later my part. Although ment there are some owner, compensating the without value minor factual differences this case between essentially has taken state the amount already decided, find no and those I can mitigation. But, originally as land used result, and contrary substantial for a basis admit, owners such a situation was reasoning, disagree I while still with the do not decide shown and we support earlier decisions conclusion point. here reached. *8 cause is reversed remanded Accordingly, I concur in the result. the district court with direction that